Killing a Second Chicken won't Intimidate the Monkey

Killing a Second Chicken won't Intimidate the Monkey
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 23, 2009

Three KMT legislators have had their electoral victories nullified as a result of vote-buying. Two KMT Central Standing Committee Members have had their status as Central Standing Committee Members nullified as a result of vote-buying. The legal system and the party disciplinary system show that the practice of vote-buying within the KMT has yet to be eradicated.
The KMT Central Standing Committee was a "special occupation." It was special because once one was made a Central Standing Committee Member, one occupied a position at the center of power. Being granted the title was the equivalent of being handed the keys to power. It was a guarantee of official advancement. Now however, it is "special" in an entirely different sense. Although being elected to the Central Standing Committee nominally places one at the center of power, one has in fact merely been placed at the fringes of power. One is unable to participate in decision-making on any policies whatsoever. People with real power have gradually abandoned their quest to become Central Standing Committee Members. Central Standing Committee membership is a mere figurehead position.

Central Standing Committee Members no longer wield real power. But some within the KMT are still falling over each other in their quest to become members. More than a few retired veteran politicians, as well as ordinary civilians who have never tasted real political power, have enthusiastically plunged into this power game in which no real power is to be had. They have won election to a Central Standing Committee that represents nothing and wields no power. It is nothing more than a public mockery, a blot on the history of the KMT. But because so many of its members were elected by hook or by crook, this particular Central Standing Committee election is especially controversial.

The KMT culture of vote-buying is of course nothing new. During past Central Standing Committee elections candidates began giving out campaign gifts from Day One. These gifts included everything from vintage wines to gold pens and gold watches. This time the two candidates whose elections were nullified merely gave out a few salted fish and a few bottles of red wine. Compared to previous candidates they were pikers. Also, candidates who gave out smaller gifts were subjected to harsher party discipline than those who gave out more extravagant gifts. Candidates who bought votes for a few hundred dollars lost their seats on the Central Standing Committee. This led to a backlash by those disciplined. They demanded to know why those who gave out salted fish were being disciplined, while those who gave out more expensive gifts such as orchids were spared. Besides, they said, giving gifts is normal human behavior. It is an historical custom. One gives gifts on holidays, and every time the party holds a party congress, it holds an election. Since one is holding an election, one must campaign. Since one must campaign, how can one not give gifts?

But the candidates who are lashing back have forgotten something. Why must one give gifts if one is campaigning for the Central Standing Committee? If one doesn't give gifts, does that mean one cannot get elected? If one cannot get elected, so what? Central Standing Committee Members are elected annually. Each week they hold only one meeting. They cannot participate in government decision-making. Nor can they intervene in the legislative or budgetary processes. How many political chips is a name card reading "KMT Central Standing Committee Member" worth? Will executive branch agencies put any stock in it? Will it enhance one's prestige as one shuttles back and forth between Taiwan and the Mainland? Perhaps one has some really great suggestions on how to govern the nation. Perhaps one must meet with the President in his capacity as party chairman every week so that one can save the party and the nation. Otherwise, these candidates who argue that "giving gifts is not a crime," must ask themselves why must candidates give gifts? Moreover, if one feels compelled to give gifts during party elections, can one say no to vote-buying when running for public office? Aren't the three candidates whose elections were nullified a perfect example?

If the party is crooked, then the government will be crooked. The first step in correcting the political atmosphere in the ruling administration, is to correct the political atmosphere in the ruling party. The ruling party controls the nation's resources. If ruling party members become accustomed to giving gifts, what won't they become accustomed to doing? Ma Ying-jeou has long abhorred vote-buying. He was sacked when he was Minister of Justice precisely because he was too diligent about investigating vote-buying. When he first became Kuomintang chairman, he warned party members that must not accept even souvenir mugs. Today, Central Standing Committee vote-buying offers proof positive that initial efforts at imposing party discipline have yet to improve the situtation. In order to change the party's political character and reverse the political winds, this is the right first step for Ma to take as party chairman.

Some have criticized Ma's handling of the affair as "overkill," "making a mountain out of a molehill," or even "punishing minor offenders but not major offenders." But the culture of vote-buying is deep-rooted. One has to make a mountain out of a molehill. One has to engage in overkill. Besides, during past attempts to intimidate potential offenders, killing one chicken successfully intimidated 100 monkeys. But today's monkeys are bolder. Killing one or two chickens is no longer enough to deter even one monkey, let alone hundreds of such monkeys. Today one must continue killing chickens until the monkeys are eventually intimidated.

If the KMT cannot rid itself of the monkey on its back known as vote-buying, then reformers will never rally behind the KMT. The KMT will remain forever trapped in the vicious cycle of its "historic role." If Ma Ying-jeou truly wants reform, he must act boldly. However many engage in vote-buying, then however many must be punished. Even if it means the overthrow of the Central Standing Committee. Only this way can the KMT transform itself. We look forward to seeing Ma Ying-jeou lob the heads off more evil monkeys.

殺二雞尚不足以儆眾猴
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.10.23 03:38 am

三位國民黨立委因賄選而被判決當選無效，兩位國民黨中常委因賄選而被取消中常委資格；司法與黨紀都證明國民黨內的賄選文化仍未根除。

國民黨中常委是個「特殊職務」，早年之所以「特殊」是因為當了中常委，就可以躋身權力核心，有了這個頭銜就等於拿到了權力的身分證，也取得了宦途晉升的保證書。而晚近之所以「特殊」則是因為進入中常會後，形式上雖儼然身處權力核心，但實質上卻被擺在權力邊陲地帶，什麼決策都參與也影響不了。真正有實力的人紛紛棄選這屆中常委，就可見中常委這個職位其實已如雞肋。

但即使中常委的權力角色已質變至此，國民黨內卻仍有人不惜擠破頭也要當個「空頭中常委」。不少資深早已退休的政治人物，以及與政治事務根本沾不上邊的社會人士，這次興沖沖參與這場拿不到權力的權力遊戲，並且在最後列名當選名單內，不但讓外界嘲諷這是國民黨黨史上「最沒權力」也「最沒代表性」的中常會；又因為其中甚多不惜一切手段也要當選的人物，更使這次中常委選舉的選風頗滋物議。

當然，國民黨內的賄選文化並非始於今日。過去別說競選中常委，從競選中央委員開始就得送禮，禮品從高價洋酒到金筆金錶不一而足。這次被開鍘的兩位中常委送的祇是幾條鹹魚與幾瓶紅酒，跟過去相比其實祇能算是小兒科。也因為「禮輕而黨紀重」，幾百元賄選卻付出喪失中常委的代價，而引起當事人的反彈。他們抱怨說：送鹹魚都要處分，送更貴蘭花的人為何不被處分？而且，送禮是人情之常，也是歷史共業，年節都要送禮，黨舉辦一次黨代表大會，又要辦選舉，既要選舉，總要拜票，既要拜票，豈能不送個伴手禮？

但這些反彈的人卻忘了想想：為什麼競選中常委就非要送禮？不送禮就選不上嗎？選不上很嚴重嗎？中常委每年改選一次，每周祇開一次會，既參與不了政府決策，也無法介入國會立法或預算刪審，一張印有「國民黨中常委」頭銜的名片，能為自己增加多少籌碼？是行政機關更買帳？還是行走兩岸更拉風？或是自己真有什麼了不起的治國建言，非得每周當著總統兼主席的面，進言獻策以救黨救國？如果以上皆非，這些主張「送禮無罪」的人就不得不問問自己：為什麼參選非要送禮？而且，黨內選舉都得送禮，真要參選公職，豈能不賄選？三位被判決當選無效的同黨立委，不就正是血淋淋的例子？

黨不正則政不正，端正政風的第一步，就得端正黨風，尤其執政黨掌控國家資源，黨員若對送禮酬謝習以為常，那就沒有任何事做不出來。馬英九對賄選一向深惡痛絕，當年他的法務部長職位就是因為查賄太嚴而被查掉；他初任國民黨主席時，也曾警告黨員連一個馬克杯都不能收，如今因中常委賄選罪證確鑿而開鍘辦人，可見他未改初衷，並且想從扭轉黨風開始，企圖扭轉政風，這是他兼任黨主席後正確的第一步。

雖然有人批評他的處理是「矯枉過正」、「小題大作」，而且「辦小不辦大」，但對於根深柢固的賄選文化，小題不但要大作，矯枉也才能過正；更何況，過去殺雞儆猴，可以殺一而儆百，但現在猴子早已成精，殺一雞二雞已不足以儆一猴，更無法儆眾猴，非得多殺幾隻雞才能收到儆嚇的效果。

國民黨如果清不掉這些靠送禮打點關係的惡猴，改革人士就不可能真心向國民黨靠攏，國民黨就永遠得陷入所謂「歷史共業」的惡性循環當中。馬英九真要改革，就得大膽施為，有幾個賄選就辦幾個，即使辦到中常委翻盤重選都不足惜，唯有如此，國民黨才有脫胎換骨的可能；我們期待馬英九再開虎頭鍘，多斬幾隻惡猴。